Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (256802)	7/6/2008 12:09:56 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

It's funny that you quote something which confirms what I wrote. It's endlessly fascinating that two people can read the same thing and get such different meaning from it. I read that and it specifically says: <Although Brezhnev was convinced in 1979 that the Soviet war in Afghanistan would be brief, Muslim guerrillas, aided by many countries (especially the US), waged a fierce resistance against the invasion.[141] The Kremlin sent nearly 100,000 troops to support its puppet regime in Afghanistan, leading many outside observers to dub the war "the Soviets' Vietnam".> What that means is that the USA supported Osama and co against the USSR and that included against Gorby. It would have been more sensible for Carter to NOT encourage a USSR invasion of Afghanistan by supporting Osama's Islamic Jihad ideology. <To restructure the Soviet economy, Gorbachev announced an agenda of reform, called perestroika. Within two years, however, Gorbachev came to the conclusion that deeper structural changes were necessary.[147] Gorbachev redirected the country's resources from costly Cold War military commitments to more profitable areas in the civilian sector.[147] Many US Soviet experts and administration officials doubted that Gorbachev was serious about winding down the arms race,[148] but the new Soviet leader eventually proved more concerned about reversing the Soviet Union's deteriorating economic condition than fighting the arms race with the West.[66] > It showed how wrong the USA could be about the most simple things to watch this process. They couldn't even figure out that Gorby wasn't just the same as Stalin and Trotsky and Brezhnev etc. It was fascinating at the time to see how long it took them to figure out the obvious. One didn't need to "be there" as Lindy seems to think, to see what was happening. What that says is that Gorby decided unilaterally that blowing the budget on a pointless militaristic system was a vast waste of resources. The idea that Reagan "won" is silly. Gorby simply walked away. He wasn't beaten. There wasn't even a conflict. He had plenty to be doing at home without playing stupid "mine's bigger than yours" games with the USA. Anyway, like it or not, the blow-back came eventually from Osama, the Twin Towers have gone, and now the USA is enmeshed in Afghanistan and Iraq and a lot of USA soldiers are dead or maimed. The economy is not exactly robust either = pouring $trillions down a war-hole isn't economically productive, despite common rumour to the contrary. Support should have gone to Gorby, not Osama. That's pretty obvious, I'd have thought. Making Afghanistan safe for the Taleban against Gorby wasn't the greatest achievement in history. Mqurice PS: Kuwait was not a country going back a bit. Have a look at the population at the beginning of the 20th century. populstat.info If Iraq had owned it, it would have made a lot more sense.